945 F.3d 1270
10th Cir.2019Background
- Antonio Caballero obtained a >$190 million civil judgment in Florida state court against defendants he alleges are Colombian drug traffickers who murdered his father.
- Caballero filed a new action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah seeking a "judgment on a judgment" and authority to use post-judgment collection procedures (invoking TRIA) against assets in Utah; defendants were served but did not appear.
- The district court registered the Florida judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 but denied any other relief for lack of personal jurisdiction; it later denied Caballero's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend.
- Caballero appealed, arguing §1963 does not authorize registration of state-court judgments in federal court and that he was entitled to a new federal judgment (invoking 28 U.S.C. §1738 and TRIA) to pursue collection remedies.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed the §1963 registration, held §1738 does not supply federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and remanded with instruction that Caballero be allowed to amend his complaint to attempt to plead TRIA jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant / District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 28 U.S.C. §1963 permits registration of a state-court judgment in federal district court | §1963 does not apply to state-court judgments; Caballero sought a new federal judgment instead | District court registered the Florida state judgment under §1963 | §1963 applies only to registration of federal-court judgments in other federal courts; registration of the state judgment was improper (reversed) |
| Whether 28 U.S.C. §1738 (Full Faith & Credit) provides an independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction to convert a state judgment into a federal judgment | §1738 supports entry/recognition of the state judgment as a federal judgment (i.e., "judgment on a judgment") | §1738 is a rule of decision, not a source of federal jurisdiction | §1738 does not supply subject-matter jurisdiction; it cannot be used to create a federal cause of action or jurisdiction (Caballero cannot rely on §1738) |
| Whether the complaint established federal jurisdiction under the TRIA to execute against defendants' assets | Caballero invoked TRIA and attached the Florida judgment (which found defendants were "narco-terrorist" and had "blocked" assets) and sought to attach assets in Utah | District court found insufficient jurisdictional allegations and denied collection relief | Complaint failed to allege TRIA's specific elements (defendants as "terrorist parties" and assets "blocked" as TRIA defines); remand with leave to amend so plaintiff may try to plead TRIA jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motion to alter/amend to obtain a federal judgment | Caballero sought entry of a new federal judgment or other relief to enable collection remedies | District court denied the motion | Court reversed the judgment and remanded; district court's treatment was legally erroneous and plaintiff should be allowed to amend to attempt to establish jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (Supreme Court 2013) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- GE Betz, Inc. v. Zee Co., 718 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2013) (discussing whether §1963 permits federal registration of state-court judgments)
- Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding §1963 applies only to federal-court judgments)
- Fox Painting Co. v. NLRB, 16 F.3d 115 (6th Cir. 1994) (interpreting §1963's language as limited to certain federal courts)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (Supreme Court 1988) (Full Faith and Credit statutes do not create an implied federal cause of action)
- Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 867 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2017) (statutory/full faith and credit does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, 771 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining TRIA's blocked-assets and agency/instrumentality requirements)
- Kirschenbaum v. Assa Corp., 934 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2019) (TRIA elements for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. All Funds on Deposit with R.J. O'Brien & Assocs., 783 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting TRIA limits execution to "blocked" funds)